from the not-the-worst-idea-I've-ever-heard,-but-certainly-not-the-best-either dept

Congress should fund research into the effects that violent video games have on young minds.

While it may seem like a shot across the bow of videogames to score some cheap political points, what Obama actually has in mind is a bit more subtle. (Make no mistake, though: this subject wouldn't have been broached if not for the Newtown shooting.)

Conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence: The President is issuing a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control and scientific agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence. It is based on legal analysis that concludes such research is not prohibited by any appropriations language. The CDC will start immediately by assessing existing strategies for preventing gun violence and identifying the most pressing research questions, with the greatest potential public health impact. And the Administration is calling on Congress to provide $10 million for the CDC to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.

Two things worth noting in this paragraph:

The "Presidential Memorandum" lifts a moratorium on this sort of research by the CDC, something that has been in place for over 15 years. Kyle Orland at Ars Technica explains:

[T]he federal Centers for Disease Control have been prohibited from funding studies that "advocate or promote gun control" since 1996, when Congress cut the $2.6 million the organization had been using to fund gun injury research through its Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Further moves since then have prevented the CDC from even receiving federal crime data for gun research, and prohibited the National Institute of Health from doing gun violence research as well.

And why was this research prohibited? Depending on who you ask, it's either because the NRA didn't like guns being tied to injuries and death (Orland calls it a "chilling effect" brought on by Arthur Kellerman's study) or the study itself was severely flawed and skewed to fit the pre-existing bias of the director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which operated under the CDC's direction.

Secondly, the wording directs the CDC to focus on areas with the "greatest potential public health impact." The administration may namecheck current hot buttons like videogames and violent media, but as it's worded, the CDC has no instruction to start its work by assessing these areas. As Orland states, this one sentence is likely nothing more than a brief concession to the current political climate:

Making a brief mention of video game studies as a part of a $10 million funding request is a good way to pay lip service to these political concerns on both the left and the right without really making it a priority. If studying video game and media violence were actually a major focus of the president's gun control agenda, it would have a much more prominent place in both his remarks and his official funding requests. Instead, the real money the president is asking from Congress will go to more important things: $20 million for the National Violent Death Reporting System, $14 million for police and security training, $150 million for in-school mental health counselors, $30 million to develop school emergency management plans, and so on.

Overall, putting the CDC in charge is probably (in the parlance of government works) the "least worst" way to handle this. The CDC will have access to more mental health-related data than other existing entities, a factor that definitely needs to be considered. (But this factor also presents its own problems: it's entirely too easy to write off mass murderers as mentally defective. The idea of taking someone's life, much less multiple lives, is so repulsive to "normal" human beings that the kneejerk reaction is to blame it on mental illness. It's safe to say that normal people would never commit mass murder, but it's way too simplistic to assume that every perpetrator is mentally defective.) It should also have access to demographic and other environmental factors, which should give it a more rounded picture than the limited sample sizes and variables of smaller studies and surveys.

Another factor that makes the CDC a preferable choice is the fact that it's an existing agency. Turning this task over to a special committee would result in a room filled to capacity with appointees and their predispositions. (The argument can also be made that the CDC carries its own predispositions, but expecting a government directive, especially an executive order, to conjure up a completely impartial study is to show a level of faith the government simply doesn't deserve.)

Now, the downside.

Any conclusions the CDC comes to will be immediately suspect. No matter what it finds, the conclusions will be disputed. The presence or absence of a link between violent media and gun violence will only exacerbate the divide between both sides of the debate. To date, no link has been conclusively proven. This study's outcome will likely be more of the same. It's nearly impossible isolate people and "violent media" from the other factors that affect the equation. The CDC should be able to incorporate its existing knowledge in regards to risk factors, but the answers it comes up with will fail to satisfy everyone. Ultimately, it will change nothing, but it will have the power to inform government policy going forward and, depending on the political climate, it's likely that gossamer-thin correlation will be enough to justify legislation.

Then there's the tangled issue of gun control policy, something the CDC has waded into in the past. Again, any conclusions drawn will be contrasted against its history with the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and its biased approach to the study of gun violence. (Particularly troublesome is a 1987 CDC report, in which the director of the NCIPC thought enough evidence existed to "confiscate all firearms from the general population" in order to prevent 8,600 homicides a year.) The administration has done a disservice to both groups (video game fans, gun owners) by making this study inseparable from a larger gun control proposal.

The best case scenario, like so much in government, is that nothing happens. The studies are proposed, the climate shifts and, like so much before it, it's discarded in favor of What's Ailing the Nation Now. While it would be interesting to see the CDC perform an in-depth study (especially if the data collected is made available to the public), the chance of a negative outcome (in terms of misguided legislation, etc.) is way too high.

On the whole, though, it is refreshing to see videogames treated as part of the media, rather than a wholly distinct scapegoat capable of destroying society on its own. Unfortunately, even with its rather brief appearance in the administration's set of proposals, it appears the government still wants to control media (as opposed to "the media") and this single paragraph could help rationalize unconstitutional measures.

What will they find??

Guns like automobiles are only as dangerous as the user behind the trigger/wheel. It would be interesting to compare the actual figures of both in relation to injuries and deaths to find out which is more dangerous and which is perceived to be more dangerous.

It always hits the news here when someone is attacked by a shark, but so many more deaths occur by other methods and we don't even blink a eye.

Any study into the "link" between game violence and real-life violence will have to explain 2 things up front - why overall violent crime has dropped in the period that videogames have gained mainstream popularity, and why other countries have significantly lower gun crime rates despite the same titles being popular there. Inability to do so should be taken as an implicit admission that videogames are not the problem.

Re:

Exactly my point. If you break it down per capita and see that other countries have as many people playing violent games but less weapons available, what does that say about the lower death count there?

I will challenge anyone who can prove a link between video games and violence to a duel, jousting match, and a knife fight on a floating log. Everybody knows that the real cause of random violence is a direct result of the unavailability of a socially acceptable outlet of targeted non-random violence. So I ask you here today my brothers and sisters, to join me in my fight against random violence by declaring war on my neighbour, The State of California.

My question is what will he do when the answer is one hes obviously not looking for to justify whatever legislation he looking to push. My guess is we'll never hear about this study, if its ever finished, buried and gone.

Re: Re:

Ah, American stupidity. One of the few things we can count on. I cannot believe that tax payer funds would be wasted on such bollocks. How about investing in better mental healthcare for those who need it instead? How about doing something about the belief that some people have that mass murder is a good way to get famous? How about mandatory background checks and psyche evaluations for ALL gun sales?

There are better ways to reduce the risk of violent crime than trying to find a link between virtual and real violence.

However, there's nowhere any indication the above homicides were done with firearms; still, I think the numbers tell you at least one thing: homicides are not related to gun availability. Gun availability may have an influence, but obviously it is NOT the main factor.

Why the CDC?

Can someone explain to me why the CDC is doing this study? The agency that handles infectious disease outbreaks?

I wouldn't mind the usual pissing-away of taxpayer dollars, which of course necessitates higher taxes, if we at least gave the money to some agency with some experience with firearm violence, like the ATF, etc.

Really?

Come on Obama! I thought you might not be the same knee-jerk reactionary that we always have. It's been studied. It's been debunked. Studying it again is NOT going to make a difference. At least just be straight up and say even though studies don't show a link, you just want it to be true anyway so you can make a dumb law to appease everyone's fears. I believe we already have game ratings, which most parents ignore anyway.

Sometimes s$#t happens. It's sad, but we'll never live in a perfectly safe world. Get some marbles and just tell it like it is.

Sounds like we need a Mass Effect Mod that puts Politicians on the face of our fave Enemies.Make Pres.Obama the Illusive Man !
No Way are you screwing with our Video Games !!! And our Art in General ! I will create whatever Art I feel like creating and you will never stop me.Even when I was in Federal Prison I was writing Anti-Government Songs.Bet you guys will start STUDYING Comic Books next.
How about those Violent Sports too.You going to stop that Football or Hockey Game ?
There have already been Studies done and they were done by qualified Professions so this whole thing has been Debunked already.SMOKESCREENS is what this is as your Corrupt Government attempts to deflect us from the real issues.
I think it is time for a real effort for Alternate Darknet ISP/Connection/Secretweb ? We need an Alternative and I am not smart enough in Networking to understand what to ask for.

Re: What happens if they find a link?

The purpose of executive orders like this is to seem like you are doing something when you actually intend to do nothing.

Obama has passed the buck. The hot topic will change and he can go about his business. If there is another (god forbid) school shooting or something similar, he can point back at this and ask what happened while pointing at other people.

If something comes out of the study that is actionable, well, he won't be in office anymore because it will take a decade, but even then, it will probably not be a hot topic at the time and can be tabled until there is a big event - then the outcome can be used to justify "doing something" around that event.

Re:

Really? Do tell.

Paranoid delusions are great and all in that they make for good forum blather, but what happened to the politicians only do what money tells them mantra? Please elucidate, what money is telling politicians to attack a somewhat large portion of the economy which apparently makes campaign contributions and how does this make for a larger contribution?

Re: Why the CDC?

I think it makes more sense than any other government agency available. At least it shows that there is some understanding that the studies should be focused on the source of violent behavior (which must be mental / physiological) rather than doing countless studies about the tools used to carry out violence.

While I think the whole thing is just a grandstanding way of doing something without actually doing anything, I think selecting the CDC was actually better than expecting the ATF to study the root cause of violent behavior.

Re: What happens if they find a link?

1) Some people are violent
2) Human violence has been persistent since, forever
3) The appearance of video games coincides with a decline in overall violence
4) Over medication of our youth coincides with an increase in violent behavior of some youth
5) Does any of the above prove anything? - no

Re: Why the CDC?

While I agree with you that the CDC is not the right agency to handle this. They have much more important mandates to handle with ACTUAL diseases, however, the BATFE has a long history of abuse of law with regard to citizens 2nd amendment rights and cannot be trusted with such a study. Just read the history and some of the court cases that lead up to the FOPA and you will see what I am talking about. The BATFE is a hammer looking for a nail and their bias is well documented.

Re: Really?

Just as he has done with other polarizing issues that bubble to the forefront of public attention that don't fit into his specific agenda, I think Obama is trying to stand directly in the middle of the issue and appear to do SOMETHING (even if it is really nothing but waiting for the issue to subside from the forefront) that pays appeals to everyone on both sides of the issue. He's called for some additional gun control measures to appeal to the anti-2nd amendment people and now he has called for this study to appeal to those who blindly follow the NRA's finger pointing at the media. That is what this really is, nothing more, nothing less.

IF, as you claim there IS no affect caused by these games then you will have nothing to worry about, it's research to FIND OUT.. Only if you believe they might find there is a link are you at all worried.

If you were sure, (and not just your estimate), then why worry about how many studies are done ??

he is calling for a STUDY, he has not simple had a knee jerk action and banned all violent video games, he has provided funding for a study to be conducted, objective data not just Masnick's or someone else's best guess.

Then based on the results of that study clearly further action will be taken.

Again, if there is not effect then what are you worried about ?

That will be shown by the research and no action will be necessary.

If on the other hand the objective research does find a causal link, then there might be some action taken.

But a study is far better than a knee jerk reaction of simply blanket banning all violent vid games from tomorrow.

Scienticfic Method

Conduct research on the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence:

Repeating research that give conflicting results is not valid science, as it fails to draw the conclusion that such research should lead to. Such results indicate that the wrong questions are being asked, and the researchers should try to find better questions.
A more useful question to answer is why are some societies, and sub-cultures more violent than others? Asking and getting a start of such questions should be the role of academia, where more free wheeling research is, or should be, permitted. The CDC tool set is orientated to locating the source of a disease, and identifying known causes, rather than finding new causes.
Their databases are also likely biased towards finding sources of diseases etc., and so present a skewed picture when compared to the general population.
Somebody needs to ask the more general question, are some societies and cultures more violent than others?

Re: What will they find??

If it was about saving lives, they would ban cars or limit speed of cars. Remember the old Suzuki Quadzilla? 500cc two-stroke 4 wheeler? 90 mph out of the crate. Too many people with more money than brains so they banned production.

Sadly though, it is about not accepting responsibility and shifting blame. Which would still be the case if we were to ban cars, or any other tool, for that matter.

I don't think it's an issue to look into all factors - one of them being the glorification of violence in the US in media, not just video games. The same way mental health care should be re-evaluated and studied and gun laws need to be examined and redefined.

The problem is people demand a fix so something will be blamed, some shitty laws will be passed and nothing will get fixed.

Yep, can't think of any reason individual Americans would feel they had the right to kill, torture, and kidnap based on a feeling that they had been wronged in some way. That violence was not only the first, the only, but the most appropriate response. Must be the media.

Re: Re: What will they find??

Remember the old Suzuki Quadzilla? 500cc two-stroke 4 wheeler? 90 mph out of the crate. Too many people with more money than brains so they banned production.

According to Wikipedia, it was discontinued, not banned: "Shortly after the introduction of the Banshee in 1987, Suzuki released the LT500R QuadRacer... Suzuki discontinued the production of the LT500R in 1990 after just four years." There is no citation listed, but I didn't see anything about a ban in a quick search. If you have information about a ban I would be curious to see it.

Re: What will they find??

It would be interesting to compare the actual figures of both in relation to injuries and deaths to find out which is more dangerous and which is perceived to be more dangerous.

In the past few years gun deaths have ranged between about 8000-10,000 per year, and auto deaths between 30,000-40,000 roughly. So cars kill about 4 times as many people as guns. Don't know about perceptions.

Re:

You know, for someone who's self admitted to saving lives and advancing the future with solar panels and what have you, you certainly have a lot of free time to come here and rant about shit and not actually make a point.

Might I suggest that instead of doing that, ranting like a loon, you spend your time more productive oh saver of lives by doing something like I don't know LEARNING HOW TO FUCKING WRITE! Maybe get started on this thing some of us learn in grade/elementary school called "proper use of grammar, capitalization, etc."

Just a thought. I only say this, because every time I read one of your comments I literally hear every English teacher I've had since I first went to school start to weep uncontrollably.

Re: Re: Re: Newsflash

President Lyndon Johnson started a war on poverty back in the 60's. Like President Richard Nixon's war on drugs it has been a roaring success.

Actually, FDR started the war on poverty in the 1930s - he just didn't call it a war. It was called the New Deal. And it was making huge progress for 50 years. Eisenhower - a Republican - kept it up and even expanded on it. LBJ's Great Society was just a continuation of it.

Those programs built the middle class in this country. Then came the 80s, 90s, and 2000s, with a huge resurgence of conservatism, where much of it was dismantled, defanged, ignored, defunded or funds raided. And look at where we are now.

Re:

There are better ways to reduce the risk of violent crime than trying to find a link between virtual and real violence.

I hope they don't spend much time or money on that. But I think it's a great idea to study an issue and try to figure out the best way to address it rather than just passing some legislation with fingers crossed, don't you? Or do we have reliable evidence that all those things you suggested will work? If so, let's do it! If not, well let's look for some.

I agree with many above when they ask why then is the violence less in other countries where the same "violent" video games are popular.

A possible answer could be that some of the other violent media such as US television is not as available to the people in these other countries.

I have say that in my opinion the study would take about a week and would provide cut and dried results.

Did the people who carried out the violent acts play violent video games? I mean if after a horrific mass shooting they raid the home of the shooter(s) and find a copy of Medal of Honor still spinning in a PS3 then I could see a link there. If not then they simply need to look somewhere else for an answer to why.

Re: Re: What will they find??

In the past few years gun deaths have ranged between about 8000-10,000 per year, and auto deaths between 30,000-40,000 roughly. So cars kill about 4 times as many people as guns. Don't know about perceptions.

I should imagine that car ownership is rather more widespread than gun ownership, and that this state of things has a direct bearing upon the numbers. Run these numbers again, but this time express them as a percentage of the ownership cohort. Thought experiment: extrapolate the numbers if it is supposed instead that every person who owns a motor vehicle also owns a gun.

Like it will end with this study...

Actually, it all started with cartoons in the 50's along with the Three Stooges. Tom & Jerry with those big hammers. The Acme anvil dropping from the sky on Wiley Coyote. This is where America started down the road toward a more violent society. Broadcast into most American living rooms each Saturday morning for consumption by the young impressionable minds of the children. Desensitizing them to portrayed pain, violence, and death.
Violent Video Games are just an extension (evolution)of this.

Honestly, if a person can not distinguish the difference between portrayed violence (Games, TV, Movies, Theater) and real life violence, there are other factors which need to be looked at before trying to "find" a link.

I can make it easy...MILLIONS of people in America play violent video games. A Few people act out in extremely violent ways. Did the ones who acted out actually play violent games? What other factors were in play that separated them from the ones that did not act out in those ways?

Re: Re: Re: Really?

Re:

Even that wouldn't prove anything in my mind, it would be a mild correlation at best. It wouldn't prove anything other than "this kid likes playing videogames", which they'd probably find true of every law-abiding kid on the same street, usually including the same level of violence.

To give a memorable example I remember - the British tabloids went apeshit over Manhunt after a copy was found belonging to a killer who had recently been arrested. Turned out that the game belonged to the victim, not the killer, and there's no evidence it had anything to do with the murder (apparently an argument over money). That didn't stop people trying to get the game banned (and succeeding for a while with the sequel, which was eventually released in a cut form). Despite everybody involved - including the police - denying that the game was in any way involved, even now those same tabloids drag out the case as "proof" that videogames are harmful.

If a copy of Medal Of Honor was found at a killer's home, my first instinct would be to doubt that evidence, even before asking such obvious further questions such as "if the game was to blame, why aren't the millions of other players worldwide doing similar things?".

They should do a study on the impact news organisations with large bases have on the opinions of the public, the morality of the average public servant and then finishing it off with a documetary on the "confirmed" lies, some would say, typical, lies governing bodies have told its people, documented history, all the way up until this day.

Is this about "violence" or "gun violence"

This study doesn't appear to be about addressing the root cause, just about focusing on the guns. The answer is very simple if you just want to limit gun violence and don't care about the actual affect on violent crime. Ban guns.

It isn't guns causing the violence...

Telegraphed

From the use of "preexisting mental conditions" to prohibit veterans from getting their benefits to attempts to medicalize the issue of homosexuality prior to the 70's to the over-medication of our children for "behavioral problems", people have been pointing for some years now at the growing intrusiveness of the government in matters they can find some link to "health care".

Tim seems pleased with this sort of thing as long as it doesn't come from the NRA, but as for the rest of us, it's all part of the same generalized push to institutionalize behavior in various ways so that it is seen as legitimate to bring the law to bear on someone ostensibly to prevent harm.

Look at the averages. These games, Call of Duty, Halo, Battlefield, etc... They sell in the 10's of millions of copies. Just on the numbers alone, if someone shoots up people, there's a high chance that they play games. Millions of people play games, and we don't see millions of these types of shootings.

Activis ion reported sales figures for Modern Warfare 3 in the U.S. and UK being more than 6.5 million copies sold on launch day and grossed $400 million in the US and UK alone in its first 24 hours

Do games contribute, who knows, bad parenting, depression, other issues, I'm sure they all contribute. This whole blame the whole enchilada on games is ridiculous and has been every single time they've brought it up over the many many years that people have been playing games.

It's easy to pick on a segment of people who don't have their own lobbyists like the film and music companies do.

Re: What will they find??

What they might find is that video games, movies, TV shows and so on are all symptoms of a deeper problem in US culture. But it would be hard for the CDC to do that on medical evidence, so probably not.

It's the same with automobiles. Thanks to public transport atrophy, poor urban planning, a culture which equates driving with personal freedom, and many other individual factors, most families in the US need more than one car, and can't really do anything without driving. There wouldn't be so many road deaths, or so much pollution, if there were fewer cars on the road. Right now, there are far more than there needs to be.

What I'd like to see is if there's a link between gun violence and the ubiquity of TSA checkpoints, armed guards in every public building, the over-reach of "zero tolerance"-like laws in schools, the militarization of the police and so on.

How about all that misogynist victim-blaming perpetrated by politicians ("legitimate rape" and all that)? How about the evidence-free hysteria about the government wanting to take your guns? How about the fact that the criminal justice system is run by mostly elected prosecutors, who are motivated mostly by headlines, not justice?

To what extent is a pervasive set of government policies telling you every day that you are not safe, not even from your own government, and that if you are a victim it's your fault, partly responsible for people feeling helpless, arming themselves, and lashing out?

Re: Re: What will they find??

I don't ever really know how to respond to people who talk as if there is no evidence that the government wants to take guns when, in fact, governments have disarmed the population many times in history, and there is an amendment to our bill of rights to the effect that the government isn't even supposed to infringe on gun ownership, and yet agents within our government are constantly trying to limit these rights without actually amending the Constitution.

It seems rather obvious they are trying to take guns without amending the Constitution, this violating the Constitution, this seeming, at least, to have nefarious motives for same. If you don't like the second amendment, the honest thing to do is to do away with it.

Nevermind Article I Section 8 of the Constitution - a whole other kettle of fish that progressives, if they were so inclined, could easily point at as evidence that our special interest dominated government is able to misuse our military abroad in no small part because they have designed it in opposition to the method spelled out in the Constitution.

Nevertheless, your point about culture as it pertains to car ownership is well received, for my part.

My Reaction

I know this is a little later in the thread, and I didn't read all 74 comments before this, but here is what I think (Sorry if it has already been mentioned):

Say the CDC completes a study that is scientifically inconclusive one way or the other, but suggests violent media MAY pose a risk. Thereafter, pro gun legislators pounce, demanding regulation of these types of media to curb violence. My first inclination is they believe the 2nd Amendment is more important than the 1st Amendment. Will anyone call them out on this?

Assume that pro gun rep was in the house, and got a bill passed that heavily restricts violent media in response. What would happen if, in the Senate, an anti-gun rep adds an amendment to the bill, placing the same level of restrictions as are being placed on media, on guns themselves. How big of a BF would the pro-gun side have?

If violent media MAY increase the number of gun related crimes and deserves regulation, shouldn't the actual guns that are actually being used in the actual crimes be subject to the same level of regulation? You can't commit a gun crime if you can't get a gun.

Re: Telegraphed

Tim seems pleased with this sort of thing as long as it doesn't come from the NRA, but as for the rest of us, it's all part of the same generalized push to institutionalize behavior in various ways so that it is seen as legitimate to bring the law to bear on someone ostensibly to prevent harm.

So, do you just stop reading the article once you feel you have a complaint to make? Did you read anything I wrote about the downside of this study? Or do you just have me pegged as a 2nd-amendment-bashing "progressive" and are just going to pick a fight with any post of mine that features the word "gun" somewhere in the text? (I've included what I wrote about the downside so you'll have a second chance to read it without being distracted by the "Leave a comment" link.)

Any conclusions the CDC comes to will be immediately suspect. No matter what it finds, the conclusions will be disputed. The presence or absence of a link between violent media and gun violence will only exacerbate the divide between both sides of the debate. To date, no link has been conclusively proven. This study's outcome will likely be more of the same. It's nearly impossible isolate people and "violent media" from the other factors that affect the equation. The CDC should be able to incorporate its existing knowledge in regards to risk factors, but the answers it comes up with will fail to satisfy everyone. Ultimately, it will change nothing, but it will have the power to inform government policy going forward and, depending on the political climate, it's likely that gossamer-thin correlation will be enough to justify legislation.

Then there's the tangled issue of gun control policy, something the CDC has waded into in the past. Again, any conclusions drawn will be contrasted against its history with the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and its biased approach to the study of gun violence. (Particularly troublesome is a 1987 CDC report, in which the director of the NCIPC thought enough evidence existed to "confiscate all firearms from the general population" in order to prevent 8,600 homicides a year.) The administration has done a disservice to both groups (video game fans, gun owners) by making this study inseparable from a larger gun control proposal.

The best case scenario, like so much in government, is that nothing happens. The studies are proposed, the climate shifts and, like so much before it, it's discarded in favor of What's Ailing the Nation Now. While it would be interesting to see the CDC perform an in-depth study (especially if the data collected is made available to the public), the chance of a negative outcome (in terms of misguided legislation, etc.) is way too high.

On the whole, though, it is refreshing to see videogames treated as part of the media, rather than a wholly distinct scapegoat capable of destroying society on its own. Unfortunately, even with its rather brief appearance in the administration's set of proposals, it appears the government still wants to control media (as opposed to "the media") and this single paragraph could help rationalize unconstitutional measures.

Re: What will they find??

"Guns like automobiles are only as dangerous as the user behind the trigger/wheel. It would be interesting to compare the actual figures of both in relation to injuries and deaths to find out which is more dangerous and which is perceived to be more dangerous."

Ugh, I hate it when the relative harm caused by cars is compared to that of guns. Cars are orders of magnitude more useful to society than guns, so society will always be far more tolerant of the downsides of cars. Bringing up the harm caused by cars in a debate about guns is just a weak attempt at deflection.

Re: Why the CDC?

Re: My Reaction

We live in a time where every conceivable violence, pornography, and filth is already protected by the 1st amendment. The only time you run afoul of the law where communication is concerned is when you fail to pay for it. They could care less what it is you pay for, as long as you pay. The rest is just some labeling and some nod toward not exhibiting it on the street corner next to your local elementary school.

No one is at all interested in taking your splatter-porn video games from you. They are interested in changing the cultural status quo back to a time when to oppose the government was the same as to oppose morality in general - in essence to BE evil. This the emphasis on the "rule of law" rather than "upholding justice". Gun control is merely one front on that multifaceted battlefield.

What do you have to ban next to make sure someone can't easily MAKE a gun? And what next? And after that? Did you know milk is already illegal in Texas (and indeed most states) without either pasteurization or a special license? And even if you have the license, it is illegal to deliver it to your customer. There is no end to this sort of "doing good".

People only recognize it when it happens to them, or when it affects something they themselves personally enjoy though.

Re: Re: Re: What will they find??

I should imagine that car ownership is rather more widespread than gun ownership, and that this state of things has a direct bearing upon the numbers.

That's true of course, but I think not relevant unless you're examining why the two numbers are so different. Which I think would be stupid. :-) The ownership numbers don't change the death statistics. The fact remains that cars kill way more people, regardless of what the situation would be if there were more guns.

Re: Re: Telegraphed

I read it.

I pretty much have you pegged as not very serious about the second amendment, and progressive at least in the sense I am progressive as it pertains to civil rights and freedom of speech matters, if that explains anything at all for you.

My problem (such as it is) is that the tone of this article is an entire planet away from the tone of your NRA comments, and yet the institution here is the same one in a position to limit freedoms regarding both speech and self defense. There's no "this is so stupid!" angle to this article. You seem much more worked up that the NRA would suggest such a link than that the government would actually go ahead and do studies in order to both find the link and tie it to medical mandates.

Re: Re: Re: Telegraphed

My problem (such as it is) is that the tone of this article is an entire planet away from the tone of your NRA comments, and yet the institution here is the same one in a position to limit freedoms regarding both speech and self defense.

Ah. You may have confused the two Tims that write for the site. I'm this one. The NRA post you're referring to (I think) was written by this one.

YYYyyyeppers

Re: Re: Re: What will they find??

Banning certain types of gun is not the same as disarming the population. It is extremely well-established in law that a) the US government can't take away certain types of gun, and b) the US government can limit ownership of certain other types of gun. That other governments have managed it does not change this.

Apart from the fact that it's legally impossible and politically implausible, the main reason why I think it's a complete beat-up is that the meme is just far too convenient for the gun manufacturer lobby (known to many as the NRA) to be real.

Many gun nuts talk about protecting the Constitution, but the simple fact is that they have done nothing to do defend civil rights, because they only care about one civil right. Pretending that that is the civil right that is under attack is a sure-fire way to get them to pay money to the gun manufacturer lobby, and has the side-benefit of distracting them from all of those other civil rights under attack.

Re: Re: Re: Re: What will they find??

I doubt there's any real evidence at all that people who care about other civil rights don't care about the second amendment. I am an example of someone who values the whole of the Bill of Rights, and I have given the breakdown of local control as it pertains to the historical record of violating civil rights a lot of thought as well.

Ultimately, the courts have decided a lot of things over the years that simply are not accurate. The Congress has a remedy for this that they have refused to use. I think it is because our two main parties are more interested in the fight over the court as an endless issue that cannot be resolved. Saying, "The courts said we can violate the second amendment," where the second amendment clearly states there should be no infringement at all, is one of the more glaring instances of government overstepping its bounds, and is no less egregious than Aaron Swartz being prosecuted for felony theft for downloading free things too quickly.

Many, many gun control advocates that I have run across are concerned about all as well. Matter of fact I was reading in the little "insider chat" window the other day about this fellow knowing a goodly number of pistol packing hippies.

Things are changing. The old lines of demarcation are disappearing precisely because we are now being attacked by our government across a broad front, and things are moving quickly.

Re: Re: What will they find??

Only if you ignore the underlying argument in favor of personal attack.

Firstly, cars are NOT as useful to society as a well ordered mass transit system would be. This would cut down on a whole panoply of maladies, not the least of which would be traffic fatalaties.

Secondly, the utility of a gun is specifically as an instrument of death. It is mentioned in the Constitution precisely because of what it is designed to do. It is there along with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution to order our institutions of enforcement and warfare such that they cannot be turned against us. This utility is far from being less important than getting from point a to point b.

Niiiiice

"why overall violent crime has dropped in the period that videogames have gained mainstream popularity, and why other countries have significantly lower gun crime rates despite the same titles being popular there."

Re: What will they find??

For all those who responded, thank you. What I was trying to point out in my comment was that irrespective of what we compare, it is a person (human being) that determines how the particular device will be used. Certainly, machines can fail, as someone with an engineering background will attest.

However, the use of anything is dependent on the decisions a person makes. Will they take a gun (of any type) and go out an threaten someone or worse? Will they take their vehicle out while under the influence of some substance, or even tiredness? Will they get angry when using the device (of any kind) and then attack or threaten someone?

What it boils down to is that if people don't care, others will get hurt.

I don't know about the USA but here in my country, we have many who drive without licenses (they just don't care if they are caught or not), drive while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or tiredness, drive while angry or have extremely short fuses and will abuse others if not chase or attack them. We have those who carelessly drive and cause accidents to others.

It is a matter of attitude and so just trying to control one area is not going to help. It is about teaching people that they are responsible for their own actions and the consequences that arise - this seems to have been lost from society as a whole. Blame, blame, blame is the name of the game.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will they find??

I doubt there's any real evidence at all that people who care about other civil rights don't care about the second amendment.

It's hard to frame the question in a way that measures exactly what you want. However, I will point out several observations.

First off, the number of people who are members of both the NRA and the ACLU is tiny compared to the membership of the NRA. (It's possibly also the case that it's small compared to the size of the ACLU, however the ACLU claims a membership of 500,000 and the NRA claims a membership of 4.3 million. So the proportion is much, much smaller for the NRA than the ACLU.)

Secondly, whatever the contemporary form of the gun owner (or manufacturer in the case of the NRA) advocacy groups have been, they have not historically spoken out on historic and current examples of egregious civil rights violates, such as universal suffrage, the internment of Japanese-American citizens, the "war on drugs", issues relating to separation of church and state, prisoners' rights, censorship, privacy, same-sex marriage and so on.

I will point out that my claim was about "many gun nuts". The specific gun nut claim that I want to critique is that one purpose of gun ownership is to oppose an oppressive government should the need arise. I claim that the threshold will never be met, because the only act the US government could perform that would make this happen would be to confiscate firearms which have legitimate civilian uses from socially acceptable people.

For $DEITY's sake, in WW2, the US government actually herded US citizens into concentration camps! You'd think that it wouldn't get any more obvious, but not even this wasn't enough to trigger armed opposition to the US government, because the government was careful to only do it to "them". Hell, if "they" had defended themselves with guns, it would only have proven the government's point.

Gun owners, as a whole, won't defend your civil rights when they are being infringed, because those doing the infringing and their collaborators will make sure that they paint you as the enemy first. The hysteria over taking away your guns is precisely part of this: painting liberals as your enemy. Divide an conquer.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What will they find??

I'm not seeing your stats add up. Is there a stat somewhere out there you are referencing that includes both NRA and ACLU?

As far as your claim that no one will ever take up arms for the good guys, what do you call the Union troops in the Civil War? Are you aware of how much of the labor movement was backed, in this country, with guerrilla warfare? Companies hired Pinkertons to bully workers, ordered assassination attempts at specific union leaders.

Some of your "examples" are issues still highly contentious. "War on drugs." I am against it, but I am not ignorant of the reasons for it either. People get sick of drug abusers behaving badly. They think to prevent it by banning the drugs without much thought to other solutions. Even after years of the policies failure, apparently many people still are just that angry at drug users, and I for my part am a little mystified as to why people don't just stop using. I mean... yes on the one hand it is idiotic to criminalize pot. On the other hand, I don't have a huge hard time not smoking it either...

So it seems to me you are painting a very one sided picture in order to make the right to bear arms, coupled with the demand the Constitution makes that the armed forces in general be made up mostly of volunteer militia, to seem to be an instrument of injustice. The problem is the only solution to the injustices you point out is to never pay any attention to what most people want.

That's just not acceptable. When you want MOST people to be stripped of rights so a FEW people can have them, you have crossed the line over into Fascism.

Hitler had no idea he was "evil". There may come a time when people finally realize it was not Hitler, but all of Germany, that gave rise to the Third Reich. They may even eventually understand that it was all the rest of the world that set the stage for its rise.

Re: Re: Why the CDC?

Why are there only extreme positions on this?

Any parent can tell you children are susceptible to suggestion, and tend to go along with what they think is the "norm".
So, violent video games DO affect children! So does MacDonald's, though they have more political clout than gaming, and so do a whole host of things we allow (football most definitely comes to mind!).
The question is BALANCE - we need to protect people, especially children, but we don't need totalitarian methods to do it!

Re: Why are there only extreme positions on this?

So, violent video games DO affect children!

Sure. The question is how exactly? I'm not concerned about them causing violent behavior, but I did stop letting my son play them when I noticed that it did cause violent thoughts. But I don't think that's something we need legislation for.